It's there 12 times.... with "scs-30kHz", "nr-rrc.scs_30kHz"
{ &hf_nr_rrc_scs_30kHz,
{ "scs-30kHz", "nr-rrc.scs_30kHz",
FT_UINT32, BASE_DEC, VALS(nr_rrc_T_scs_30kHz_vals), 0,
NULL, HFILL }},
hf_nr_rrc_scs_30kHz
hf_nr_rrc_scs_30kHz_01
hf_nr_rrc_scs_30kHz_03
hf_nr_rrc_scs_30kHz_04
hf_nr_rrc_scs_30kHz_05
hf_nr_rrc_scs_30kHz_06
hf_nr_rrc_scs_30kHz_09
hf_nr_rrc_scs_30kHz_10
hf_nr_rrc_scs_30kHz_11
hf_nr_rrc_scs_30kHz_12
hf_nr_rrc_scs_30kHz_13
hf_nr_rrc_scs_30kHz_14
On Fri, 2 May 2025 at 11:33, Anders Broman <a.broma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The renaming was done to fix "the same filter name used for different ft
> types". Maybe this one don't have a duplicate? If it has a duplicate than
> it's a bug. If not it could still be renamed for consistency.
> /Anders
>
> Den fre 2 maj 2025 05:37Tamás Regős <reg...@gmail.com> skrev:
>
>> Hi community,
>>
>> I have a question related to the nr-rrc protocol channelBWs scs-30kHz
>> field name.
>>
>> As an example, in a UE Capability Information message for NR bands we
>> have channel BWs DL/UL fr1 like this:
>>
>> channelBWs-DL: fr1 (0)
>> fr1
>> scs-15kHz: 0000 [bit length 10, 6 LSB pad bits, 0000 0000 00..
>> .... decimal value 0]
>> scs-30kHz: 77c0 [bit length 10, 6 LSB pad bits, 0111 0111 11..
>> .... decimal value 479]
>> scs-60kHz: 0000 [bit length 10, 6 LSB pad bits, 0000 0000 00..
>> .... decimal value 0]
>>
>> The respective field names are:
>> nr-rrc.bandNR.channelBWs_DL.fr1.scs_15kHz
>> nr-rrc.scs_30kHz <---- why?
>> nr-rrc.bandNR.channelBWs_DL.fr1.scs_60kHz
>>
>> These related to the asn1 .cnf file settings (30kHz is missing):
>>
>> #.FIELD_RENAME
>> BandNR/channelBWs-DL/fr1/scs-15kHz
>> bandNR_channelBWs-DL_fr1_scs-15kHz
>> BandNR/channelBWs-UL/fr1/scs-15kHz
>> bandNR_channelBWs-UL_fr1_scs-15kHz
>> BandNR/channelBWs-DL/fr1/scs-60kHz
>> bandNR_channelBWs-DL_fr1_scs-60kHz
>> BandNR/channelBWs-UL/fr1/scs-60kHz
>> bandNR_channelBWs-UL_fr1_scs-60kHz
>>
>> #.FIELD_ATTR
>> BandNR/channelBWs-DL/fr1/scs-15kHz
>> ABBREV=bandNR.channelBWs_DL.fr1.scs_15kHz
>> BandNR/channelBWs-UL/fr1/scs-15kHz
>> ABBREV=bandNR.channelBWs_UL.fr1.scs_15kHz
>> BandNR/channelBWs-DL/fr1/scs-60kHz
>> ABBREV=bandNR.channelBWs_DL.fr1.scs_60kHz
>> BandNR/channelBWs-UL/fr1/scs-60kHz
>> ABBREV=bandNR.channelBWs_UL.fr1.scs_60kHz
>>
>> header fields in the .c file:
>> { &hf_nr_rrc_bandNR_channelBWs_DL_fr1_scs_15kHz,
>> { "scs-15kHz", "nr-rrc.bandNR.channelBWs_DL.fr1.scs_15kHz",
>> FT_BYTES, BASE_NONE, NULL, 0,
>> "BIT_STRING_SIZE_10", HFILL }},
>> { &*hf_nr_rrc_scs_30kHz_09*,
>> { "scs-30kHz", "*nr-rrc.scs_30kHz*",
>> FT_BYTES, BASE_NONE, NULL, 0,
>> "BIT_STRING_SIZE_10", HFILL }},
>> { &hf_nr_rrc_bandNR_channelBWs_DL_fr1_scs_60kHz,
>> { "scs-60kHz", "nr-rrc.bandNR.channelBWs_DL.fr1.scs_60kHz",
>> FT_BYTES, BASE_NONE, NULL, 0,
>> "BIT_STRING_SIZE_10", HFILL }},
>>
>>
>> Is this deliberate or a minor bug?
>> Shouldn't there be the same logic for scs-30kHz too?
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tamas
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wireshark-dev mailing list -- wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wireshark-dev-le...@wireshark.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wireshark-dev mailing list -- wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to wireshark-dev-le...@wireshark.org
>
_______________________________________________
Wireshark-dev mailing list -- wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wireshark-dev-le...@wireshark.org
